The Supreme Court's ruling on Affordable Care Act last Thursday notwithstanding, "We the People" must recognize that good healthcare for everyone is beneficial to our national interest. This is not a partisan issue, and we can't succumb to the forces of division that increase their power base by dividing segments of society against each other. We spend more than adequate resources on healthcare, but this doesn't happen in a logical manner and waste is abundant.
The ObamaCare ruling by the Supremes this week dramatically changes the political landscape. Justice Roberts’s decision is being called by MSM the “Compromise of 2012.” But compromise will not work to appease contention. It will instead inflame opposition and bring states’ rights issues to the mainstream. It is already doing so. As Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner on Saturday, backlash is forming and 85 percent of Republicans want to see ObamaCare repealed either in whole or in part.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 has been called the "Great Compromise." But it forced slavery on the North and offended states’ rights and the 10th Amendment. The effect was to infuriate the North and drive it closer to warfare and the great tragedies that lay ahead. As one major commentator claimed Friday in The Washington Post, “John Roberts’s Compromise of 2012” is “historic because it is a compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days.” It is indeed, and as the court did in 1850, Roberts has now infuriated the right and the 30 states that brought opposition to this federal mandate.
Life after the healthcare ruling has begun. The Supreme Court's shocker Thursday was much anticipated, long awaited and, in the end, quite humbling, since nearly no one had it right.
The big, immediate question was, who gains politically from the fact that the highest court not only upheld the president's controversial healthcare reform law — including an individual mandate to purchase care — but then likely broadened the authority of Congress to tax? The answer is one side gets a short-term win and the other enjoys longer-term benefits.
Momentous is what it is, and a major surprise, given the justices’ vote in which the conservative chief justice joined the liberal minority and thus created the prevailing majority.
The president has coming a blow of his (lately quiet) horn.
The Supreme Court never fails to “take the third option.” Don’t be fooled by the simple-minded “Obama won/Republican lost” rhetoric. What Chief Justice John Roberts has done is categorized ObamaCare’s funding mechanism as it should’ve been all along — a tax. The administration argued strenuously before the court that the individual mandate was a tax — something well within their power to do; but they had just as strenuously — and disingenuously — argued in Congress that this was not the case. Of course, being a tax means a few things:
Team Obama may be cheering now, just after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but the political problems for the president and congressional Democrats has just grown tenfold.
That such a monumental change to American life and liberty was imposed with no Republican votes with President Obama repeatedly denying that his government takeover of one-sixth of our economy was NOT a tax, and to be caught in that blatant and purposeful lie, will damage him severely. The president told us one thing, then told the Supreme Court quite another story in order to win his case. The SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate because Obama's lawyer argued that it was, in fact, a tax!
The Supreme Court is no longer relevant.
Long viewed as the last bastion protecting the individual from the rapacious powers of the federal government, SCOTUS, in the name of Chief Justice John Roberts, declared themselves meaningless.
If government can compel individuals to purchase a private product under the guise of its taxing authority, even when the government itself argued that the individual mandate was not a tax, then the government can compel individuals to do anything they choose.
The healthcare decision was a gigantic legal victory for President Obama. The politics will in my view be 50-50. I tip my hat to the legal team of Fox News, which gave by far the most professionally accurate coverage of the decision (I always call them as I see them). There will now be much unhappiness and probably anger from the right against Chief Justice Roberts for his historic vote (along with the court liberals) that kept the mandate alive.
While the decision was a historic legal and legacy victory for President Obama, I doubt the decision will ultimately help or hurt either party.
Americans may recall that President Obama promised, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.” While this mandated coverage in the healthcare reform legislation was desired by many people who are willing to pay the cost, there were certainly other medical insurance consumers who preferred their lower cost coverage. However, contrary to the president’s assurance, they were not permitted to keep their preferred lower-cost healthcare plans.
As we wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the Affordable Care Act, I remain hopeful that this is the first step in reining in an unruly progressive state. Should the SCOTUS strike down the whole law — or even just the individual mandate — it is a sign that there is indeed a limit to federal power.
Still, feminist groups on the left have been lining up to defend ObamaCare in the weeks leading up to this decision and to “keep fighting” for the law’s survival.